Rock & Pop : Do you think that Live performance is the best way to judge a band\artist ?

Question

Rock & Pop : Do you think that Live performance is the best way to judge a band\artist ?

Answer 1

Yes. But I have to say that Lady Gaga still sounds great live. She can hold up to the live performances.

Answer 2

You make a good point, but I don't really think so. It is possible for an artist or band to make spectacular music and then be terrible performers. I really like Hole... but I don't think judging their live performance is the best way to judge them as a band since Courtney is really out of it a lot of the time.

Answer 3

To be quite honest, I have heard Lady Gaga live, and her voice is hardly pathetic.



I have never actually heard Miley sing live, in fact I believe she lip syncs every performance.



But I do agree, that a live performance shows true talent, while an album can be retouched, redone...and made to be perfect.



I went to Ozzfest last year. Motley Crue and Ozzy sounded phenomenal live. Yes even better than the albums. So I can agree with that also.

Answer 4

If you are watching them live and not on the internet recorded by a guy who recorded it on his cellphone.

Then yes, but I like studios versions best because then it's the best sound quality you can get from that artist/band.

Answer 5

It's debatable KISS was AMAZING live they were all spectacular showmen. However I wouldn't hardly call KISS a great band, I mean lets face it if the money is right KISS is doing anything.



Phish is another one that could never captivate in the studio what they could on a live stage.

Answer 6

Yes, I think that is a fair thing to do. In studio they can do all sorts of tricks to sound better... but you know, a few bands I can think of use multiple instruments on a track and so playing them live is difficult because you need someone to play them all and sometimes one band member will play multiple instruments on the CD tracks. Also I'd say that some places have bad acoustics or the gear has been set up badly which may not always be the band's fault.

Answer 7

no.

some times after touring bands can lose that voice they had at the begginning of the tour.

and black sabbath? ozzy sounds horrible live.



bands should be judged by the music they put out.



because if the songs not good on the album, its not good live.



and they are the geniuses that came up with it, in the studio, see my point?



the songs them selves are what tells us what a band is, so thats the best way to judge them

Answer 8

A good artist has to be a good live performer. If an artist can't perform live well then they're not good. However, the quality of the song is most important. If an artist performs a bad song live then the performence will be bad

Answer 9

i believe that to judge a band or a singer, you definitely need to see them live. this is mostly why i hate pop music, because live, they're just singing to a recorded track in crazy outfits. if you take away all the sparkles and crazy set ups, then take away the track, then it's just some attractive person singing a pitchy song with a bad sounding voice in general. i don't have respect for a band if they can't pull off their songs live, unless their recorded songs are incredible.

Answer 10

i've always preferred a live setting, and seeing how the band expanded upon the studio on stage. that doesn't necessarily mean that a live performance is the best way to judge a band though, there are many bands that were better in the studio than live, and many that were better live than in the studio. i think it's mostly up to personal preference, and the way each individual hears the music.



i believe the only objective way to truly judge bands other than by personal preference is to put them into a historical context. the only problem with that is that putting bands in a historical context slants the opinions in favor of older bands and artists, but that's the nature of history.

Answer 11

no. live performance is not very important in a band for me. any good band can do good live shows, what makes a band great is what they can create in the studios where songs as ideas are perfected. A lot of Led Zeppelin's songs were done in a minimal of takes and the album would show where Page will have played an impressive riff but made the smallest of mistakes. this doesn't mean he isn't good, but if he would have just done a few more takes he would have easily been able to correct it. to me that just a show of lack of commitment to your musical creation. like the opener here is so sloppy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=um6eNkswv3g. and maybe he wanted it to sound that way, but if that were my song i would make sure that the best time i ever played that riff was what appear on the album.

some of the best music made cannot be recreate on stage. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTMOSCh7aJU

a live show to me is just a opportunity for the band to enjoy their music directly with their audience and is more about FUN then actual creative and musical talent.

i don't think music should be about the presentation but simply about the music. in the studio you hear exactly what the artist WANTED their music to sound like

Answer 12

I believe a live performance is the best way to judge a band/artist.

Answer 13

Yes. With the exception of few, a band's not truly good unless they can put up a good live show.

Answer 14

Live performances.No matter how well you sing, you are auto-tuned in the music videos, and CD's.

Answer 15

Every musical group should be judged by live talent.

Answer 16

yes

Answer 17

not really, you could judge them by their lyrics.